NickT: "link" is a vague term, so I can't really tell what you mean. Lucy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus) ) is a particular Australopithecus skeleton which is unusually complete, and Australopithecus may be a common ancestor of the great apes (including humans - although the common ancestor between humans and chimps was more recent).

There are definitely many hominid fossils, giving us considerable information about our ancestral relationships - for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fossils, and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html - and ancient tool sites have often been found. The problem (and the reason why Lucy and a few other finds are so special) is that human fossils are very difficult to find. This is unsurprising, since early humans did not live in an environment conducive to fossilization.

If you'd like me to answer further questions, I'm happy to help in private messages or in another thread.

Now replying to christianstrategies:

christianstrategies wrote:Just go a little bit further in this "fiction", you may assume somebody disguised as Santa Claus, with beard and a red jacket... would proof what?

...I thought we were talking about a hypothetical situation in which we observed Santa Claus, not observed someone in a red jacket.

Regardless, the example is irrelevant to the point I was making - that observing evidence for a proposition X implies that X is true. Appropriate evidence could indeed definitively convince me that Santa Claus exists, and actually seeing him and his flying reindeer (under controlled conditions) would probably suffice. Of course, I haven't observed such evidence, and thus will provisionally assume with reasonable confidence that he does not exist, as per Occam's Razor.

You can also see that I am very capable of answering your hypothetical question, but you have not directly responded to mine.

What I'm saying is that, parallel ways of creating life like proofed clonage and non proofed darwinism, in order to be correctly considered as one of the possible ways (among others: creationism of course) to create the whole nature, have to show evidences that: they could create all species of the world, one by one. Evolution, I mean, change of specie, in only one specie is not enough to be generalized to whole nature.

I understood that, and I was drawing a logical inference from it and previous things you've said. The point is that if failure to create life supports your position, then the creation of life will provide support against your position. This does not require every species to be produced - which, it seems, has only just recently become your standard of evidence, as you were previously only requesting one.

Don't come with excuses of money: they have money to build the CERN or to put HUBBLE in the space, right? That's not really an excuse not to do such a test...

Again, it was a hypothetical question (not an "excuse"), which stipulated that we were unable to afford it. I don't think you can make an argument against the possibility of this situation unless you say that there is an infinite amount of money in existence.

If you wish, we could replace "suppose we could not afford it" with "suppose it would take too long and we won't know the answer for 1000 years." The situation is fundamentally the same - the idea is that it could be done but could not be feasibly carried out.

It looks like you essentially said, "Jesus confirms that evolution cannot occur. Even if evolution occurred, that would not prove anything." In other words, your position is unfalsifiable.

Again, if your argument is unfalsifiable, this discussion doesn't really have a point.

...yes, I believe in this matter (I mean, darwinism and not big bang), my position is unfalsifiable...

...Then this discussion doesn't really have a point. I'm not sure whether you understand that "unfalsifiable" is not a good thing.

I'll reply again if you can answer my questions directly, or supply useful predictions that demonstrate an understanding of falsifiability.

AstraSequi wrote:NickT: "link" is a vague term, so I can't really tell what you mean. Lucy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus) ) is a particular Australopithecus skeleton which is unusually complete, and Australopithecus may be a common ancestor of the great apes (including humans - although the common ancestor between humans and chimps was more recent).

Sorry, Australopithecus shall be the result of sex between humans and closer species, and to be dated between 4.300 and 6.000 years ago (existed before the flood).

And fossiles are a proof of creationism and not evolutionism: they only proof that the specie existed, and not continuous evolution.

AstraSequi wrote:Now replying to christianstrategies:

christianstrategies wrote:Just go a little bit further in this "fiction", you may assume somebody disguised as Santa Claus, with beard and a red jacket... would proof what?

...I thought we were talking about a hypothetical situation in which we observed Santa Claus, not observed someone in a red jacket.

Regardless, the example is irrelevant to the point I was making - that observing evidence for a proposition X implies that X is true. Appropriate evidence could indeed definitively convince me that Santa Claus exists, and actually seeing him and his flying reindeer (under controlled conditions) would probably suffice. Of course, I haven't observed such evidence, and thus will provisionally assume with reasonable confidence that he does not exist, as per Occam's Razor.

You can also see that I am very capable of answering your hypothetical question, but you have not directly responded to mine.

It seems you like fiction. It seems that you don't believe in Santa Claus because of lack of evidence: you could also discard darwinism for the same reasons: lack of proofs...

AstraSequi wrote:

What I'm saying is that, parallel ways of creating life like proofed clonage and non proofed darwinism, in order to be correctly considered as one of the possible ways (among others: creationism of course) to create the whole nature, have to show evidences that: they could create all species of the world, one by one. Evolution, I mean, change of specie, in only one specie is not enough to be generalized to whole nature.

I understood that, and I was drawing a logical inference from it and previous things you've said. The point is that if failure to create life supports your position, then the creation of life will provide support against your position. This does not require every species to be produced - which, it seems, has only just recently become your standard of evidence, as you were previously only requesting one.

1.There's only evidence of creationism: creation of synthetic virus in labo... with the technologic progress, sooner it shall be possible to create other species, it is a question of time and I'm not talking of "millions of years". There's no evidence of creating life from void with darwinism...

2. yes, to proof darwinism you have to proof it to all species in the nature: otherwise can some synthetic virus be created through geneticiens and other species through darwinism... although not even one specie can be created only through mutations without a creator... the lack of proofs as the will to remove God from the procedure is flagrant...

AstraSequi wrote:

Don't come with excuses of money: they have money to build the CERN or to put HUBBLE in the space, right? That's not really an excuse not to do such a test...

Again, it was a hypothetical question (not an "excuse"), which stipulated that we were unable to afford it. I don't think you can make an argument against the possibility of this situation unless you say that there is an infinite amount of money in existence.

If you wish, we could replace "suppose we could not afford it" with "suppose it would take too long and we won't know the answer for 1000 years." The situation is fundamentally the same - the idea is that it could be done but could not be feasibly carried out.

Ah, OK, I'll become a superman within 1000 years, but until then, I have no proofs...

Evolution depends upon incremental mutations which benefit survival. Having the ability to see is clearly beneficial to survival. The problem for me is that before an animal can see there are too many things that need to happen - we need to have eye balls which are connected to the brain which has built into it the ability to interpret the electrical signals it receives. And one little mutation accomplishes all that?

DonGoble wrote:Evolution depends upon incremental mutations which benefit survival. Having the ability to see is clearly beneficial to survival. The problem for me is that before an animal can see there are too many things that need to happen - we need to have eye balls which are connected to the brain which has built into it the ability to interpret the electrical signals it receives. And one little mutation accomplishes all that

----Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof. (Ashley Montague)

1. I've seen the video: pure non proofed bla bla... just to give a better idea of such darwinism, the vision shall still evolve a lot: normally I'll become a superman, but of course, it shall take another hundreds of millions of years, you know, mutations and selective adaptation to the environment takes too long, we must be patient... but me, as a "darwinist convinced", I really believe in the future development of my ray x capacities within many hundreds of years... of course you as darwinists believe in that too, isn't it?

No, vision was conceived through a very intelligent creator (God), and possibly in the future (no, I'm not talking of "million of years"), the geneticists will be able to reproduce it in humans, through genetic programming and technics like cloning...

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof. (Ashley Montague)

2. Yes, we have stronger evidences of creationism than of darwinism. Intelligent Creators (geneticists or God) are already able to create synthetic virus and even bacterias! Links: http://www.zdnet.com/photos/scientists- ... tos/425927 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Synthetic_viruses . Darwinism has no such proofs... can you create a virus or a bacteria from void? Are darwinists able to make evolve a virus into a bacteria? Ah! It takes "million of years" (before I become a superman, I knew that, I must be patient...)...

In order to avoid repetition, I suggest you to see all arguments against continuous evolution without creator since page 19... billions of people are being misled in schools and universities through the logical darwinist pollution...

I think the real problem of why evolution is not as widely accepted as many other scientific theories, is the many questions that remain unanswered. The fossil record, why isn't there a broad range of fossils covering the spectrum of evolution instead of thousands of fossils of each species. Behe in his book the edge of evolution, shows that the odds are really against it. If no real answers can be presented we will have to go back to the drawing boards.

Here is the definition of "life" leads to a rejection of the "theory" of evolution from the primary replicators to man and others. Life: the active situational model on the cell membrane, equipped with a polypeptide-nucleic technology. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater